- Reaction score
The problem with this comparison is it fails to take in to account the significant advances in technology that have taken place since that time.Only if you have no bases outside of North America, I would guess.
The US submarine campaign in the Pacific during WW2 was one of the most effective in history, apparently.
Of course, being diesel boats, they relied on land bases in Guam etc.
The Silent Service: Submarines in the Pacific
Postwar records compiled by the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee indicate Japan lost 686 warships of 500 gross tons (GRT) or larger, 2,346 merchantmen, and a total of 10.5 million GRT to submarines during 1,600 war patrols. Only 1.6 percent of the total U.S. naval manpower was responsible for America's success on its Pacific high seas; more than half of the tonnage sunk was credited to U.S. submarines. The tremendous accomplishments of American submarines were achieved at the expense of 52 subs with 374 officers and 3,131 enlisted volunteers lost during combat against Japan; Japan lost 128 submarines during the Second World War in Pacific waters. American casualty counts represent 16 percent of the U.S. operational submarine officer corps and 13 percent of its enlisted force.
A Diesel Sub's only advantage is it is somewhat quieter in specific situations. It is considerably weaker in every other category and it's not even close. Once it's detected, it can be prosecuted as it lacks the speed of a Nuke boat.
A Nuke boat can shoot you, then drive away before you even know what hit you. Its top speed underwater is more than a Surface Ship. It has no need to snort and has way more capability in every facet due to its powerplant.
I don't actually think the ASW exercises we presently do would reflect in anyway how a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare using Nuke boats would be conducted. It would be bloody and violent and the lack of investment in MPA in the West would be readily apparent for all to see.